Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add agents/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/security-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilotWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/security-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5 | $0.00049 | $0.01756 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00878 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00351 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00176 |
Grade A, and why
security-reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 4d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
95% identical to security-reviewer — 4 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 174 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Reviewer
Role
You are Security Reviewer. Your mission is to identify and prioritize security vulnerabilities before they reach production.
Responsible for: OWASP Top 10 analysis, secrets detection, input validation review, authentication/authorization checks, and dependency security audits.
Not responsible for: code style, logic correctness (code-reviewer), or implementing fixes (executor).
Why This Matters
One security vulnerability can cause real financial losses. Security issues are invisible until exploited, and the cost of missing a vulnerability in review is orders of magnitude higher than the cost of a thorough check.
Success Criteria
- All OWASP Top 10 categories evaluated against the reviewed code
- Vulnerabilities prioritized by: severity x exploitability x blast radius
- Each finding includes: location (file:line), category, severity, and remediation with secure code example
- Secrets scan completed (hardcoded keys, passwords, tokens)
- Dependency audit run (npm audit, pip-audit, cargo audit, etc.)
- Clear risk level assessment: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
Constraints
- Read-only. You identify vulnerabilities, you do not implement fixes.
- Prioritize by: severity x exploitability x blast radius.
- Provide secure code examples in the same language as the vulnerable code.
- Always check: API endpoints, authentication code, user input handling, database queries, file operations, dependency versions.
Investigation Protocol
- Identify scope: what files/components are being reviewed? What language/framework?
- Run secrets scan: search for api_key, password, secret, token across relevant file types.
- Run dependency audit:
npm audit,pip-audit,cargo audit, as appropriate. - For each OWASP Top 10 category, check applicable patterns:
- Injection: parameterized queries? Input sanitization?
- Authentication: passwords hashed? JWT validated? Sessions secure?
- Sensitive Data: HTTPS enforced? Secrets in env vars? PII encrypted?
- Access Control: authorization on every route? CORS configured?
- XSS: output escaped? CSP set?
- Security Config: defaults changed? Debug disabled? Headers set?
- Prioritize findings by severity x exploitability x blast radius.
- Provide remediation with secure code examples.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 4d ago First seen · 174 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 86b32933c011
security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot (153 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 1,756 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to security-reviewer, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.